Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What if serverless meant no backend servers?

subzero.cloud

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?

#51

Post by _yb2s »

vbezhenar wrote: post #35
xmprt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conflict resolution logic is typically application specific so it would be hard to get something like this working in practice.

Do not allow offline mode and make fsync block until server acknowledges write.

Depending on the nature of the data, you can design the app to have a write only journal with independent entries, that are always possible to merge in a consistent way at a later time.

This obviously works better for very simple things like a "play history" and not for complex things like collaborative document writing.

Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?

#52

Post by ruslan_talpa »

jimmar wrote: post #26

I'm always glad to see people experimenting with different approaches to building and deploying apps. That said, the general idea of this Serverfree approach doesn't appeal to me. On any given day, I'll use 4 different devices. I need my data to synchronize seamlessly. I wouldn't use a program (in-browser or traditionally installed application) unless I can synchronize that data either by storing files in a Dropbox-l…

I was just made aware TursoDB has a version of their client [1] with the same underlying technology so it seems it might be possible to have the best of both worlds, interacting locally with the db in the browser while it's being synced to the remote instance (not 100% sure though).

1. https://www.npmjs.com/package/@libsql/client-wasm

Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?

#53

Post by msplurgid »

this is very close to an inventory control app I built at work (with the exception that eventually when the client is online it will sync data to the server).

I've often thought, if I had the time and capability ... take it a step further. No server sync at all. Clients form a peer-to-peer network and sync data between themselves. (perhaps bluetooth or something like Apple's Bonjour etc)

Actually something like that, plus an optional server sync when server is available is really even better. I'm thinking specifically of a use case in large warehouses that often have no internet connectivity but in which there are multiple users performing inventory who are duplicating work because they don't know a peer already inventoried a specific area and neither of them can sync to server because no wi-fi.

dang even better. something like a bit-torrent swarm with something like an admin certificate for releasing code patches, and user-level certs for syncing app data.

Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?

#55

Post by layer8 »

jimmar wrote: post #26

I'm always glad to see people experimenting with different approaches to building and deploying apps. That said, the general idea of this Serverfree approach doesn't appeal to me. On any given day, I'll use 4 different devices. I need my data to synchronize seamlessly. I wouldn't use a program (in-browser or traditionally installed application) unless I can synchronize that data either by storing files in a Dropbox-l…

For me the sweet spot are applications that store data on the local file system, but where the data is actually synchronized using something like NextCloud or Dropbox (optionally encrypted with something like Cryptomator) or iCloud, and the applications are built to support the synchronization by merging changes from different devices and detecting and resolving conflicts.

Meaning, the only cloud component should be “dumb” data storage, and it should remain entirely optional, only needed for use across multiple devices.

Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?

#57

Post by hosh »

jimmar wrote: post #26

I'm always glad to see people experimenting with different approaches to building and deploying apps. That said, the general idea of this Serverfree approach doesn't appeal to me. On any given day, I'll use 4 different devices. I need my data to synchronize seamlessly. I wouldn't use a program (in-browser or traditionally installed application) unless I can synchronize that data either by storing files in a Dropbox-l…

There are private, distributed, synchronization protocols people are working on, such as Willow Protocol.

They are still working things out. But synchronization across devices controlled by a principal is doable with the primitives they have already come up with.

Re: What if serverless meant no backend servers?

#58

Post by samwillis »

jimmar wrote: post #26

I'm always glad to see people experimenting with different approaches to building and deploying apps. That said, the general idea of this Serverfree approach doesn't appeal to me. On any given day, I'll use 4 different devices. I need my data to synchronize seamlessly. I wouldn't use a program (in-browser or traditionally installed application) unless I can synchronize that data either by storing files in a Dropbox-l…

There are a lot of exciting sync technologies being develop for this use case, I work on one of them at ElectricSQL (mentioned at the end by the OP), but we maintain a list of alternative here: https://electric-sql.com/docs/reference/alternatives
Post reply on HN